Pathivukal

A DISPUTE IN MAALAN'S BLOG

- R.P.Rajanayahem -

R.P.Rajanayahem This is what Maalan has written in his blog:       .        .       ,       ,       ,  .     . : "..      .    ..   ''         . ''      ."

  ? "        .       .     .     .    "   . (  -  9)

          ?. "            "    .          ,      .           . ' '             .     .    '! '   .    .

,    ?   :

"      , "  ''    ?"  . "           "  .        . "
    ?"   ."    ''  " .

"   , ?"

" !     ." !      !     .     "   .     ." ( -  -  31)

  ?      (      )       .      .        '   '     . '     '     .      .

      ,       ,     

    ,   ,        .      ,    .

A Riposte From R.P.RAJANAYAHEM to Maalan:

1. Po. velsamy should take responsibility to give a reply to this. Kalachuvadu has definitely no motive in it. Maalan is biased in depicting a funny motive. Maalan's assumption is peculiar.

Po. Veluchamy was in "Nirapirigai" coterie and he has no rapport with Kalachuvudu.

2. This was the first article he wrote in Kalachuvadu.

3. He is an unique and important scholor

4. He has his own individuality and he has no need to blow the pipe of Kalachuvadu at any cost.

5. You have pointed out a factual error and thus you have done a good work. Thanks a lot. But why should you try to fix this as a polemics and establish a strange motive on Kalachuvadu.

6. Po.veluchamy has clearly indicated in his article that swaminathaiyer was a sanadhani and inspite of that his contribution to Tamil longuage is great and one cannot ignore his sacrifice and hard work.

7. Should Maalan have a motive to every news of SUN TV for eg If a R.S.S member' s speach had been telecasted, could one say easily that Because Maalan is a brahmin , he has a motive in editing this new. wont this be funny?

8. It leads to a suspicion that For his obvious rapport with DMK leader M.Karunanidhi , Maalan is trying his level best to avoid his brahmin identity by accusing Kalachuvadu as Pro Bramin.

9. Swaminathaiyer in his Enn Saritram clearly writes in 'Peyar matram' chapter that he couldn't easily be accustomed to this name ' Swaminathan'. It is more than obvious because of his saiva principle Meenakshi sundaram forced him to change his student's name from Venkata raman to his another name Swaminathan.

I have a right to question that you try to establish that Po veluchamy has no sense of his own and he stoops to any level as he is a sutra that he agrees to write to a brahmin's command and thus this he has glorified brahmins in his article . this is Maalan's accusation. So a sutra can never raise to a level of great scholar and he can be easily dominated by brahminism. Maalan has strongly established this rotten motive in his article.

Please Maalan, You cannot take a scholar like Veluchamy for granted as he is a sutra by birth.

Friday, Jul 22, 2005

Dear Maalan, My intentions are genuine. I dont see the need to retaliate. I object your comment that I am drifting matter from the real issue. It is again funny that you are emphasizing that you have never criticized Po.Veluchamy. We all know your target is Kalachuvadu and your deliberate intention is to attack Kalachuvadu is also clearly depicted in your article. When you raise a question to Kalachuvadu for the article written by Veluchamy, it is more than obvious you put a finger on Veluchamy also. You have found a factual error in Po.Veluchamy article only.

I have to use the same weapon on you unwillingly by which you tried to attack Kalachuvadu. You only forced me to question in your style and method.

I have given a proper rejoinder to your article and I feel this is more than enough.

With warm regards,

R.P. RAJANAYAHEM

: .. .   ?

Malan   ..             .      .    . .    .       .   .  27  .      . ( .      )

 ..,
   .     .

    ' '  .    .     .         .        .

     ()    .              .  ,       .    .       .

 ,  ,          .   19        .

,            .   .   ,  .       ,         ?

 

.         .

1. ,      ,       .  . .

2.                . .. '   '      .

3.        ...       .     .            .    ?

4.'  ,  .       ,         ?'   ..   .  :    ?. "            "    . "        .     ?             ?

5.      . .       .    !.          .       .         ?       .       .         .. ?     .     .  .   . ?

        ..            .        ,     .

      ,   ,      .  .         ''   .     .

   .   .        ,        ?

R.P.RAJANAYAHEM: AN ARDENT FAN OF KARUNANIDHI SO FAR IS LAUGHING AT ME

It is the height of irony that an ardent fan of Karunanidhi so far is amused in laughing at me and brands me as a rasika of Kalachuvadu!( I mark it as SO FAR as it is whispered,there is a rumour now that Maalan is relieved from his post in SUN TV)

 I do agree Kalachuvadu cannot interfere with Veluswamys Ideas and Ideology.. Maalan need not have attributed motives to Kalachuvadu.

The above declaration of Indira Parthasarathy Proves strongly that my stand is correct. What I have specified in my rejoinders, Parthasarathy also has stressed in his mail and thus Maalans motive and Strange assumption is Totally shattered into pieces and yet Maalan has started his second round to play his tricks .

I have already thanked Maalan that he has found a factual error. PO. Veluchamy has admitted honestly that he has committed an error when I spoke with him over phone two days back.. But he is extremely pained and wounded at Maalans writings  Researchers misinterpret the historical truths according to their own will and Kalachuvadus hand in his own writings.' Indira Parthasarathy is now informed of Veluchamys admittance of committing a factual error in a reply given by me to his email Yesterday.

Maalan is doing much ado about nothing and making a big issue over a small tissue now. He has no room to hide himself and of course he is in a pathetic condition and this grief should be crowned with consolation and only the tears live in an onion should water this sorrow.

It is a farce that Maalan had earlier ignored me by declaring "I will not respond to you hereafter as you have a closed mind to appreciate the issue" and now he conveniently forgets his declaration and again teases me as a Kalachuvadu Rasika (even after my explanation that Kalachuvadu is not an untouchable god) and gives me importance in his second round article's Title!

This itself is a success to my honest stand!!

Sundara Ramaswamy is being afflicted by this kind of slanderous remarks for the past fifty years. Actually he refused to respond more than sixty criticisms on 'JJ SILA KURIPPUKAL' and he will never respond to you as he knows very well that whatever genuine reply can never satisfy the intellecuals stuffed with strange criterion measure and funny reason.

Atlast somehow Maalan could manage to arrange a thilaga's friend to retort me and congratulate himself. Ha! ha! ha ! one more feather in his cap!

  !    !!

rprajanayahem@yahoo.co.in